Journal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics : the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics · 2010
Ocular surface tolerability of prostaglandin analogs in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Whitson Jess T, Trattler William B, Matossian Cynthia, Williams Julia, Hollander David A
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the ocular surface tolerability of latanoprost 0.005% preserved with 0.02% benzalkonium chloride (BAK), bimatoprost 0.03% preserved with 0.005% BAK, and travoprost 0.004% preserved with the proprietary preservative system sofZia in patients previously treated with latanoprost.
METHODS: This randomized, multicenter, investigator-masked, parallel-group study enrolled patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension who had been on latanoprost monotherapy for at least 4 weeks. At baseline, patients were randomized to receive once-daily bimatoprost (n=35), latanoprost (n=38), or travoprost (n=33) monotherapy for 3 months. Follow-up visits were at week 1, month 1, and month 3. The primary outcome measure was physician-graded conjunctival hyperemia at month 3. Secondary outcome measures included corneal staining with fluorescein and tear breakup time (TBUT).
RESULTS: There were no significant differences among the treatment groups in conjunctival hyperemia scores, corneal staining, or TBUT at the latanoprost-treated baseline or at any follow-up visit. Baseline mean (standard error of the mean) values were as follows--conjunctival hyperemia: bimatoprost 0.74 (0.10), latanoprost 0.74 (0.11), travoprost 0.86 (0.12), P=0.692; corneal staining: bimatoprost 0.59 (0.12), latanoprost 0.70 (0.13), travoprost 0.48 (0.11), P=0.423; TBUT (in seconds): bimatoprost 9.1 (1.0), latanoprost 8.6 (0.8), travoprost 7.9 (0.8), P=0.578. Month 3 values were as follows--conjunctival hyperemia: bimatoprost 0.80 (0.12), latanoprost 0.74 (0.10), travoprost 0.98 (0.13), P=0.340; corneal staining: bimatoprost 0.71 (0.78), latanoprost 0.47 (0.64), travoprost 0.36 (0.62), P=0.110; TBUT (in seconds): bimatoprost 9.7 (5.3), latanoprost 9.2 (5.3), travoprost 9.7 (6.3), P=0.909.
CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences among bimatoprost (preserved with 0.005% BAK), latanoprost (preserved with 0.02% BAK), and travoprost (preserved with sofZia) in objective clinical measures of ocular tolerability, including physician-graded hyperemia, corneal staining, and TBUT after 3 months of treatment. Longer-term studies are needed to further evaluate the ocular surface tolerability of these prostaglandin analogs.
METHODS: This randomized, multicenter, investigator-masked, parallel-group study enrolled patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension who had been on latanoprost monotherapy for at least 4 weeks. At baseline, patients were randomized to receive once-daily bimatoprost (n=35), latanoprost (n=38), or travoprost (n=33) monotherapy for 3 months. Follow-up visits were at week 1, month 1, and month 3. The primary outcome measure was physician-graded conjunctival hyperemia at month 3. Secondary outcome measures included corneal staining with fluorescein and tear breakup time (TBUT).
RESULTS: There were no significant differences among the treatment groups in conjunctival hyperemia scores, corneal staining, or TBUT at the latanoprost-treated baseline or at any follow-up visit. Baseline mean (standard error of the mean) values were as follows--conjunctival hyperemia: bimatoprost 0.74 (0.10), latanoprost 0.74 (0.11), travoprost 0.86 (0.12), P=0.692; corneal staining: bimatoprost 0.59 (0.12), latanoprost 0.70 (0.13), travoprost 0.48 (0.11), P=0.423; TBUT (in seconds): bimatoprost 9.1 (1.0), latanoprost 8.6 (0.8), travoprost 7.9 (0.8), P=0.578. Month 3 values were as follows--conjunctival hyperemia: bimatoprost 0.80 (0.12), latanoprost 0.74 (0.10), travoprost 0.98 (0.13), P=0.340; corneal staining: bimatoprost 0.71 (0.78), latanoprost 0.47 (0.64), travoprost 0.36 (0.62), P=0.110; TBUT (in seconds): bimatoprost 9.7 (5.3), latanoprost 9.2 (5.3), travoprost 9.7 (6.3), P=0.909.
CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences among bimatoprost (preserved with 0.005% BAK), latanoprost (preserved with 0.02% BAK), and travoprost (preserved with sofZia) in objective clinical measures of ocular tolerability, including physician-graded hyperemia, corneal staining, and TBUT after 3 months of treatment. Longer-term studies are needed to further evaluate the ocular surface tolerability of these prostaglandin analogs.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AgedAged, 80 and overAmidesAntihypertensive AgentsBenzalkonium CompoundsBimatoprostCloprostenolConjunctivaCorneaFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGlaucoma, Open-AngleHumansHyperemiaLatanoprostMaleMiddle AgedOcular HypertensionPreservatives, PharmaceuticalProstaglandins F, SyntheticSingle-Blind MethodTearsTravoprostTreatment Outcome